Watergate's Deep Throat Revealed

[richlevy]

I completely agree with TW's last post (I won't comment on any others). The recent attempt to rewrite history - 'What Nixon did wasn't that bad', 'Nixon was a great statesman with only a few minor faults', is the Republican party's attempt at belated damage control using their new media power.

While there had been crooked presidents before Nixon, the public had become somewhat spoiled by Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, FDR, and Eisenhower. While some of these men made controversial decisions, public and private, there was a sense that these were true populists. These men were intelligent, but were regarded as fair dealers. They were men who honest, but smart enough to deal with men who weren't.

Nixon brought pettiness and pure self-interest to the White House and got caught doing it. In his defense some people might say that his not being personally wealthy and not having wealthy friends like FDR did, he had to work harder and cut corners to stay in office and lead. Of course, their were many other presidents who were not born wealthy who seemed to have been able to reach and keep the office without resorting to the level of corruption of the Nixon White House.

There have been great presidents in the past, and many of them were Republicans. Some conservative presidents like Coolidge have left a legacy of poor foreign policy and corporate interference in government, but others were true populists. Even Coolidge was a dedicated public servant.

Nixon's actions in the White House tainted his party for a least a generation, injected a (healthy?) cynicism of future presidents in a population already affected by Vietnam, and unfortunately may have provided a playbook for future less-than-honest administrations.

Of course people are trying to polish up Nixon's image at the same time we are dismantling the checks on power that were established because of Nixon's actions.

We have allowed the special prosecutor law to expire. We are discussing not only renewing some of the most controversial Patriot Act provisions, but making them permanent . In all, we are setting ourselves up for a future Nixon II who will have more unchecked power than any president in the 20th century.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
George Santayana

[xoxoxoBruce]

In all, we are setting ourselves up for a future Nixon II who will have more unchecked power than any president in the 20th century.

Future??

[lookout123]

1) bruce - although i disagree with your conclusion that deepthroat is a hero, i appreciate your calm, rational post.

2) how many more ways can i say it? nixon is not a hero. he is not a good guy. he was crooked. he was evil and nasty. he was a used douche.

3) nixon being evil doesn't change my opinion of the methods that deepthroat chose to use. was there no politician, wannabe politician, other higher-up in any LE organization who was either A) honest, or B) personally motivated enough that deepthroat could have done the work in a more legitimate manner?

either way, folks, it doesn't really matter - it is just a matter of opinion. deepthroat did what he did, nixon fell, some lessons were learned until next time. politics has never and will never draw the best among us.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

deepthroat did what he did, nixon fell, some lessons were learned until next time. politics has never and will never draw the best among us.

I don't know about that. People do learn. Germany learned it's lesson in blind obedience after Hitler fell. Someday we'll learn what to really look for in a leader when we experience one who turns out to be a disaster.

There are really good experienced politicians out there who could lead, if they thought that the American people were ready to listen and that they didn't have to sell their souls to major corporations to get there.

[lookout123]

there may be some good leaders in politics, but i haven't seen one yet. i believe the best leaders are in corporate america and they wouldn't touch politics with anything but their checkbook. if i was a real leader, with vision, and the ability to reach the summit... i just don't see how making yourself a target of every scumsucking political hack, wannabe journalist, etc. is worthwhile.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

there may be some good leaders in politics, but i haven't seen one yet.

One prerequisite for a minimally acceptable leader is one who actually reads his own memos.

Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo,

The memo was only 13 pages. He could only read an executive summary? Ahh. But the memo that warned of upcoming 11 September attacks was about two pages. George Jr could not read that PDB either. Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill literally had to take George Jr through his memos, step by step, for two hours, because George Jr did not read. Where does inability to do reading (or not even knowing the countries on Israel’s borders) qualify one as a leader? I forgot. Cheney makes the presidential decisions. George Jr need not read. Being a front man is sufficient to be a leader.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

was there no politician, wannabe politician, other higher-up in any LE organization who was either A) honest, or B) personally motivated enough that deepthroat could have done the work in a more legitimate manner?

NO.
In order to do anything you need the assistance of the Justice Department or the congress. Neither were available until public opinion forced them into action. That's how corrupted the Federal Government had become under Nixon and how complacent the majority of the public was.

Remember it wasn't just Deep Throat's information, it had to be correlated with others.

Nixon was chased out but the corruption lingers and sadly the complacency grows.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Remember it wasn't just Deep Throat's information, it had to be correlated with others.

xoxoxoBruce makes a powerful point here. Deep Throat did not leak information. He simply did what others in government routinely do. They don't go on record, but are provided a copy of the story before it is published. These senior government officials may be a Cabinet member, the Vice President, a Fed Chairman, etc. They too may not leak the secrets. But when confronted with a story about to be published, they will admit to, deny, or refuse comment.

Deep Throat did same. One massive difference. Deep Throat was saving the US Constitution and the American government from corruption at the highest levels of government. Therefore he had to do covertly what senior government officials do overtly. Corruption so widespread that Mark Felt had no superior he could go to. Everyone above him was part of the conspiracy - either actively of tacitly. Those who criticize Mark Felt conventiently forget that fact.

To disparage Deep Throat is to say corrupt officials are always right - equivalent to supreme monarchs. This is the reasoning Nixon tried to use before the US Supreme Court when he refused to release the Watergate Tapes. A ruling that made the court so nervous that they considered the possiblity of a coup. Those who disparage Mark Felt conveniently forgot such details.

[lookout123]

To disparage Deep Throat is to say corrupt officials are always right - equivalent to supreme monarchs.

no it isn't. saying that Felt may not have been a saint with purely altruistic motives, doesn't equal to saying that those he opposed were flawless. that is too simplified - binary, if you will.

i believe that Felt was working towards a just and proper goal - the ouster of the dirty president and his minions. i believe that there may have been other ways of going about it without privately leaking to journalists through a secretive pseudonym, etc. in the end, we'll never really know for sure so anything we say is pure speculation.

Nixon did fall, so yay for America.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i believe that Felt was working towards a just and proper goal - the ouster of the dirty president and his minions. i believe that there may have been other ways of going about it without privately leaking to journalists through a secretive pseudonym, etc. in the end, we'll never really know for sure so anything we say is pure speculation.

First, I don't know that Felt was working for the ouster of a dirty president. But he was helping to expose widespread corruption at the highest levels of government. Back then, it was not clear how much Nixon was involved in Watergate and other plumber activities even to insiders such as John Dean. But they did know, beyond a doubt, that Nixon was fully involved in the coverup. Today, with the slow release of Nixon Watergate tapes, we know Nixon was fully involved in creating and directing the plumbers.

Second point: if Felt had other options, then clearly we are prosecuting intelligence operative in Abu Ghraid prision who ordered and condoned outright torture and murder. After all, those lowly enlisted men did not bring dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq. They did not suddenly decide to torture prisoners only after Gen Miller arrived to Gitmoize Abu Ghraid. Outright torture only existed in two wings of (Abu Ghraid) operated by unnamed intelligence officers. So why are we not prosecuting those who taught Gitmo tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan? Actions ordered at that highest levels of government. Clearly, whistle blowers still don't have enough protection. Blame the little people and the managers will not be prosecuted. (Enron, Arthur Andersen, Waste Management, Tyco, ...)

Often the only alternative for government officials is leaking. Too many Americans still openly adovocate prosecution of whistle blowers rather than the criminal. Back then, whistle blowers had no protection. None! If Felt really had other alternative, then those same alternatives would have American intelligence operatives from Abu Ghraid being prosecuted for torture and murder today.

Of course Lookout123 again speculates. He does not even say what options Mark Felt had. Clearly Mark Felt could have gone to his superiors - done everything right and legal - when all his superiors were part of the conspiracy. No wonder Lookout123 forgets to say what Mark Felt could have done. Lookout123 forgets to include that one tiny little detail. What could Mark Felt have done when even today whistle blowers cannot expose those who Gitmoized Abu Ghraid and Afghanistan prisons.

We still don't yet protect whistle blowers. Mark Felt, back when whistle blowers had no legal protection, did the only thing he could do. Because of Mark Felt, et al, then America created its first protections for whistle blowers. But Mark Felt, who Lookout123 says could have done something different, had no such laws to protect him. Just another detail that Lookout123 forgets to mention when he accused the most innocent man in Watergate of being immoral or unethical. That other little detail forgotten - what then was Mark Felt suppose to do. Pray to god for a solution? What was his only other choice in a country whose laws prosecuted whistle blowers?

[lookout123]

tw, i get your point, and you may be right. in the end, it is ok if we disagree.

i do have to ask though (and i am being serious), do you drink before you post? quite often your coherency level plummets and i can't figure out the pattern.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your obstinacy makes him twitch. :p

[lookout123]

if at some point in the next 20 or so years, i can get tw to JUST ONCE admit that there is a slight chance there are equal but different points of view than his own - my life will be a success.

and i will personally fund UT's retirement as a thank you for allowing us the bandwidth to argue.

since i'm pretty sure part one won't happen - sorry UT, don't get excited.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

if at some point in the next 20 or so years, i can get tw to JUST ONCE admit that there is a slight chance there are equal but different points of view than his own - my life will be a success.

I don't have a problem with differing points of view. I have a very severe problem with opinions not based upon facts.

For example, a previous fact to keep women out of combat was only speculation; as also expressed in the movie "GI Jane". Where was the fact necessary to draw that conclusion? No such fact existed. But lookout123 already had an opinion. We are still waiting for him to state his facts on that issue. When confronted previously, lookout123 provided no facts.

In this thread, Lookout123 says Mark Felt should have acted differently. Name one thing he could have done. What could Felt do when all his superiors were actively or tacitly part of the conspiracy? I am again asking the same question of Lookout123 that he did not answer when he so criticized Mark Felt earlier. Lookout123 - for something like the third time: what should Mark Felt have done? Please feel free to provide some facts such as what he could have done AND why he could have done it.

One is suppose to first learn facts before having an opinion. Fine. If lookout123 has an opinion that Mark Felt had other options, then Lookout123 can also say what Mark Felt should have done. After all, lookout123 would never post without first obtaining facts. So clearly lookout123 also has facts as to what Mark Felt should have done. Lookout123 criticized Mark Felt. Then he also can tell us what Mark Felt could have done instead. So for the third plus time, what could Mark Felt have done instead of becoming Deep Throat?

Lookout123 has an opinion based in facts. Therefore we await the judge's decision of what Mark Felt should have done.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i do have to ask though (and i am being serious), do you drink before you post? quite often your coherency level plummets and i can't figure out the pattern.

A rather interesting question. Which are examples of up and down - so as to put them against dates, local, etc?